More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Open access

From Preference Elicitation to Participatory ML: A Critical Survey & Guidelines for Future Research

Authors:

Michael Feffer,

Michael Skirpan,

Zachary Lipton,

Hoda HeidariAuthors Info & Claims

AIES '23: Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

Pages 38 - 48

https://doi.org/10.1145/3600211.3604661

Published: 29 August 2023 Publication History

All formats PDF

Abstract

The AI Ethics community faces an imperative to empower stakeholders and impacted community members so that they can scrutinize and influence the design, development, and use of AI systems in high-stakes domains. While a growing chorus of recent papers has kindled interest in so-called “participatory ML” methods, precisely what form participation ought to take and how to operationalize these ambitions are seldom addressed. Our survey of the relevant literature shows that in many papers, participation is reduced to highly structured, computational mechanisms designed to elicit mathematically tractable approximations of narrowly-defined moral values. Of papers that actually engage with real people, these engagements typically consist of one-time interactions with individuals that are often unrepresentative of the relevant stakeholders. Motivated by these clear limitations, we introduce a consolidated set of axes to evaluate and improve participatory approaches. We use these axes to analyze contemporary work in this space and outline future AI research directions that could meaningfully contribute to operationalizing the ideal of participation.

References

[1]

David J Abraham, Avrim Blum, and Tuomas Sandholm. 2007. Clearing algorithms for barter exchange markets: Enabling nationwide kidney exchanges. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Electronic commerce. 295–304.

Digital Library

[2]

Evgeni Aizenberg and Jeroen Van Den Hoven. 2020. Designing for human rights in AI. Big Data & Society 7, 2 (2020).

[3]

Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2016. Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks.ProPublica (May 2016).

[4]

Miguel Arana-Catania, Felix-Anselm Van Lier, Rob Procter, Nataliya Tkachenko, Yulan He, Arkaitz Zubiaga, and Maria Liakata. 2021. Citizen participation and machine learning for a better democracy. Digital Government: Research and Practice 2, 3 (2021), 1–22.

Digital Library

[5]

Miguel Arana-Catania, Felix-Anselm van Lier, and Rob Procter. 2022. Supporting peace negotiations in the Yemen war through machine learning. Data & Policy 4 (2022), e28.

[6]

Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Richard Kim, Jonathan Schulz, Joseph Henrich, Azim Shariff, Jean-François Bonnefon, and Iyad Rahwan. 2018. The moral machine experiment. Nature 563, 7729 (2018), 59–64.

[7]

Yahav Bechavod, Christopher Jung, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. 2020. Metric-free individual fairness in online learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.05474 (2020).

[8]

Abeba Birhane, William Isaac, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Díaz, Madeleine Clare Elish, Iason Gabriel, and Shakir Mohamed. 2022. Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participatory AI. Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (2022), 1–8.

[9]

Abeba Birhane, Elayne Ruane, Thomas Laurent, Matthew S. Brown, Johnathan Flowers, Anthony Ventresque, and Christopher L. Dancy. 2022. The forgotten margins of AI ethics. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 948–958.

[10]

Elizabeth Bondi, Lily Xu, Diana Acosta-Navas, and Jackson A Killian. 2021. Envisioning communities: a participatory approach towards AI for social good. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 425–436.

Digital Library

[11]

Ralph A. Bradley. 1984. 14 Paired comparisons: Some basic procedures and examples. In Nonparametric Methods. Handbook of Statistics, Vol. 4. Elsevier, 299–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7161(84)04016-5

[12]

Tone Bratteteig and Guri Verne. 2018. Does AI make PD obsolete? exploring challenges from artificial intelligence to participatory design. In Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Situated Actions, Workshops and Tutorial-Volume 2. 1–5.

Digital Library

[13]

Robin Chan, Radin Dardashti, Meike Osinski, Matthias Rottmann, Dominik Brüggemann, Cilia Rücker, Peter Schlicht, Fabian Hüger, Nikol Rummel, and Hanno Gottschalk. 2023. What should AI see? Using the public’s opinion to determine the perception of an AI. AI and Ethics (2023), 1–25.

[14]

Hao-Fei Cheng, Logan Stapleton, Ruiqi Wang, Paige Bullock, Alexandra Chouldechova, Zhiwei Steven Steven Wu, and Haiyi Zhu. 2021. Soliciting Stakeholders’ Fairness Notions in Child Maltreatment Predictive Systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17.

Digital Library

[15]

Alexandra Chouldechova. 2017. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big data 5, 2 (2017), 153–163.

[16]

Vincent Conitzer, Markus Brill, and Rupert Freeman. 2015. Crowdsourcing Societal Tradeoffs. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS).

[17]

Bill Cooke and Uma Kothari. 2001. Participation: The new tyranny?Zed books.

[18]

Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2020. Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. The MIT Press.

[19]

Fernando Delgado, Solon Barocas, and Karen Levy. 2022. An uncommon task: Participatory design in legal AI. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW1 (2022), 1–23.

[20]

Fernando Delgado, Stephen Yang, Michael Madaio, and Qian Yang. 2021. Stakeholder Participation in AI: Beyond" Add Diverse Stakeholders and Stir". arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.01122 (2021).

[21]

John P Dickerson, Ariel D Procaccia, and Tuomas Sandholm. 2013. Failure-aware kidney exchange. In Proceedings of the fourteenth ACM conference on Electronic commerce. 323–340.

Digital Library

[22]

John P Dickerson, Ariel D Procaccia, and Tuomas Sandholm. 2014. Price of fairness in kidney exchange. Technical Report. CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIV PITTSBURGH PA DEPT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE.

[23]

Amelia Lee Dogan. 2022. Participatory Machine Learning Models in Feminicide News Alert Detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 36. 13134–13135.

[24]

Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel. 2012. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference. 214–226.

Digital Library

[25]

El-Mahdi El-Mhamdi, Sadegh Farhadkhani, Rachid Guerraoui, and Lê-Nguyên Hoang. 2021. On the strategyproofness of the geometric median. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02394 (2021).

[26]

Michael Feffer, Hoda Heidari, and Zachary C. Lipton. 2023. Moral Machine or Tyranny of the Majority?. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 37.

Digital Library

[27]

Rachel Freedman, Jana Schaich Borg, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, John P Dickerson, and Vincent Conitzer. 2020. Adapting a kidney exchange algorithm to align with human values. Artificial Intelligence 283 (2020), 103261.

[28]

Daniel Golovin, Andreas Krause, and Debajyoti Ray. 2010. Near-optimal bayesian active learning with noisy observations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 23 (2010).

[29]

Nina Grgic-Hlaca, Elissa M Redmiles, Krishna P Gummadi, and Adrian Weller. 2018. Human perceptions of fairness in algorithmic decision making: A case study of criminal risk prediction. In Proceedings of the 2018 world wide web conference. 903–912.

Digital Library

[30]

Aaron Halfaker and R Stuart Geiger. 2020. Ores: Lowering barriers with participatory machine learning in wikipedia. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–37.

Digital Library

[31]

Galen Harrison, Julia Hanson, Christine Jacinto, Julio Ramirez, and Blase Ur. 2020. An empirical study on the perceived fairness of realistic, imperfect machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 392–402.

Digital Library

[32]

Joseph Henrich. 2020. The WEIRDest people in the world: How the West became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous. Penguin UK.

[33]

Gaurush Hiranandani, Shant Boodaghians, Ruta Mehta, and Oluwasanmi Koyejo. 2019. Performance Metric Elicitation from Pairwise Classifier Comparisons. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics(Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 89), Kamalika Chaudhuri and Masashi Sugiyama (Eds.). PMLR, 371–379. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v89/hiranandani19a.html

[34]

Gaurush Hiranandani, Shant Boodaghians, Ruta Mehta, and Oluwasanmi O Koyejo. 2019. Multiclass performance metric elicitation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (2019), 9356–9365.

[35]

Gaurush Hiranandani, Jatin Mathur, Harikrishna Narasimhan, and Oluwasanmi Koyejo. 2020. Quadratic Metric Elicitation with Application to Fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.01516 (2020).

[36]

Gaurush Hiranandani, Harikrishna Narasimhan, and Oluwasanmi Koyejo. 2020. Fair performance metric elicitation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.12732 (2020).

[37]

Kenneth Holstein, Bruce M McLaren, and Vincent Aleven. 2019. Co-designing a real-time classroom orchestration tool to support teacher–AI complementarity. Journal of Learning Analytics 6, 2 (2019).

[38]

Soaad Hossain and Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed. 2021. Towards a New Participatory Approach for Designing Artificial Intelligence and Data-Driven Technologies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.04072 (2021).

[39]

Sofia Hussain, Elizabeth B-N Sanders, and Martin Steinert. 2012. Participatory design with marginalized people in developing countries: Challenges and opportunities experienced in a field study in Cambodia. International Journal of Design 6, 2 (2012).

[40]

Christina Ilvento. 2019. Metric learning for individual fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00250 (2019).

[41]

Caroline M Johnston, Simon Blessenohl, and Phebe Vayanos. [n. d.]. Preference Elicitation and Aggregation to Aid with Patient Triage during the COVID-19 Pandemic. ([n. d.]).

[42]

Christopher Jung, Michael Kearns, Seth Neel, Aaron Roth, Logan Stapleton, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. 2019. An algorithmic framework for fairness elicitation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10660 (2019).

[43]

Anson Kahng, Min Kyung Lee, Ritesh Noothigattu, Ariel Procaccia, and Christos-Alexandros Psomas. 2019. Statistical foundations of virtual democracy. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 3173–3182.

[44]

Maria Kasinidou, Styliani Kleanthous, Pınar Barlas, and Jahna Otterbacher. 2021. I agree with the decision, but they didn’t deserve this: Future Developers’ Perception of Fairness in Algorithmic Decisions. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 690–700.

Digital Library

[45]

Christopher M Kelty. 2020. The participant: A century of participation in four stories. University of Chicago Press.

[46]

Mike Kesby. 2005. Retheorizing empowerment-through-participation as a performance in space: Beyond tyranny to transformation. Signs: Journal of women in Culture and Society 30, 4 (2005), 2037–2065.

[47]

Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. 2016. Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.05807 (2016).

[48]

Pallavi Koppol, Henny Admoni, and Reid Simmons. [n. d.]. Iterative Interactive Reward Learning. ([n. d.]).

[49]

Hélène Landemore and Scott E Page. 2015. Deliberation and disagreement: Problem solving, prediction, and positive dissensus. Politics, philosophy & economics 14, 3 (2015), 229–254.

[50]

Benjamin Laufer, Sameer Jain, A Feder Cooper, Jon Kleinberg, and Hoda Heidari. 2022. Four years of FAccT: A reflexive, mixed-methods analysis of research contributions, shortcomings, and future prospects. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 401–426.

Digital Library

[51]

David Lee, Ashish Goel, Tanja Aitamurto, and Helene Landemore. 2014. Crowdsourcing for participatory democracies: Efficient elicitation of social choice functions. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, Vol. 2. 133–142.

[52]

Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Anson Kahng, Ji Tae Kim, Xinran Yuan, Allissa Chan, Daniel See, Ritesh Noothigattu, Siheon Lee, Alexandros Psomas, 2019. WeBuildAI: Participatory framework for algorithmic governance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–35.

[53]

Donald Martin Jr, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Jill Kuhlberg, Andrew Smart, and William S Isaac. 2020. Participatory problem formulation for fairer machine learning through community based system dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.07572 (2020).

[54]

Vickie A Miracle. 2016. The Belmont Report: The triple crown of research ethics. Dimensions of critical care nursing 35, 4 (2016), 223–228.

[55]

Giles Mohan. 2006. Beyond participation: strategies for deeper empowerment. In Participation: The New Tyranny?, Bill Cooke and Uma Kothari (Eds.). Zed Books, London, 153–167. http://oro.open.ac.uk/4157/

[56]

Giles Mohan. 2006. Beyond participation: strategies for deeper empowerment. (2006).

[57]

Frederick Mosteller. 2006. Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: I. The least squares solution assuming equal standard deviations and equal correlations. Selected Papers of Frederick Mosteller (2006), 157–162.

[58]

Debarghya Mukherjee, Mikhail Yurochkin, Moulinath Banerjee, and Yuekai Sun. 2020. Two Simple Ways to Learn Individual Fairness Metrics from Data. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning(Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 119), Hal Daumé III and Aarti Singh (Eds.). PMLR, 7097–7107. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/mukherjee20a.html

Digital Library

[59]

Ritesh Noothigattu, Snehalkumar Gaikwad, Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Iyad Rahwan, Pradeep Ravikumar, and Ariel Procaccia. 2018. A voting-based system for ethical decision making. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 32.

[60]

Ziad Obermeyer, Brian Powers, Christine Vogeli, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2019. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366, 6464 (2019), 447–453.

[61]

Emma Pierson. 2017. Demographics and discussion influence views on algorithmic fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.09124 (2017).

[62]

Carlo Pugnetti and Remo Schläpfer. 2018. Customer preferences and implicit tradeoffs in accident scenarios for self-driving vehicle algorithms. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 11, 2 (2018), 28.

[63]

Samantha Robertson and Niloufar Salehi. 2020. What If I Don’t Like Any Of The Choices? The Limits of Preference Elicitation for Participatory Algorithm Design. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.06718 (2020).

[64]

Debjani Saha, Candice Schumann, Duncan Mcelfresh, John Dickerson, Michelle Mazurek, and Michael Tschantz. 2020. Measuring non-expert comprehension of machine learning fairness metrics. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 8377–8387.

[65]

Paulo Savaget, Tulio Chiarini, and Steve Evans. 2019. Empowering political participation through artificial intelligence. Science and Public Policy 46, 3 (2019), 369–380.

[66]

Nripsuta Ani Saxena, Karen Huang, Evan DeFilippis, Goran Radanovic, David C Parkes, and Yang Liu. 2019. How do fairness definitions fare? Examining public attitudes towards algorithmic definitions of fairness. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 99–106.

Digital Library

[67]

Michael Skirpan and Micha Gorelick. 2017. The Authority of "Fair" in Machine Learning. In 2017 ACM Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, FATML Workshop.

[68]

Mona Sloane, Emanuel Moss, Olaitan Awomolo, and Laura Forlano. 2022. Participation Is not a Design Fix for Machine Learning. In Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. 1–6.

[69]

C Estelle Smith, Bowen Yu, Anjali Srivastava, Aaron Halfaker, Loren Terveen, and Haiyi Zhu. 2020. Keeping community in the loop: Understanding wikipedia stakeholder values for machine learning-based systems. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.

Digital Library

[70]

Clay Spinuzzi. 2005. The methodology of participatory design. Technical communication 52, 2 (2005), 163–174.

[71]

Megha Srivastava, Hoda Heidari, and Andreas Krause. 2019. Mathematical notions vs. human perception of fairness: A descriptive approach to fairness for machine learning. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 2459–2468.

Digital Library

[72]

Harini Suresh, Rajiv Movva, Amelia Lee Dogan, Rahul Bhargava, Isadora Cruxen, Ángeles Martinez Cuba, Guilia Taurino, Wonyoung So, and Catherine D’Ignazio. 2022. Towards Intersectional Feminist and Participatory ML: A Case Study in Supporting Feminicide Counterdata Collection. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 667–678.

[73]

Judith Jarvis Thomson. 1985. The trolley problem. The Yale Law Journal 94, 6 (1985), 1395–1415.

[74]

LL Thurstone. 1927. A law of comparative judgment. 34 (1927), 273–286.

[75]

Niels Van Berkel, Jorge Goncalves, Danula Hettiachchi, Senuri Wijenayake, Ryan M Kelly, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2019. Crowdsourcing perceptions of fair predictors for machine learning: A recidivism case study. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–21.

Digital Library

[76]

Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. 2017. Making Better Use of the Crowd: How Crowdsourcing Can Advance Machine Learning Research.J. Mach. Learn. Res. 18, 1 (2017), 7026–7071.

Digital Library

[77]

Brian Wampler. 2012. Participation, representation, and social justice: Using participatory governance to transform representative democracy. Polity 44, 4 (2012), 666–682.

[78]

Mohammad Yaghini, Hoda Heidari, and Andreas Krause. 2019. A human-in-the-loop framework to construct context-dependent mathematical formulations of fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03020 (2019).

[79]

Meg Young, Michael Katell, and PM Krafft. 2022. Confronting Power and Corporate Capture at the FAccT Conference. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1375–1386.

Digital Library

[80]

Bowen Yu, Ye Yuan, Loren Terveen, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Jodi Forlizzi, and Haiyi Zhu. 2020. Keeping designers in the loop: Communicating inherent algorithmic trade-offs across multiple objectives. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1245–1257.

Digital Library

[81]

Angie Zhang, Alexander Boltz, Chun Wei Wang, and Min Kyung Lee. 2022. Algorithmic management reimagined for workers and by workers: Centering worker well-being in gig work. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20.

Digital Library

[82]

Angie Zhang, Olympia Walker, Kaci Nguyen, Jiajun Dai, Anqing Chen, and Min Kyung Lee. 2023. Deliberating with AI: Improving Decision-Making for the Future through Participatory AI Design and Stakeholder Deliberation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11623 (2023).

[83]

Haiyi Zhu, Bowen Yu, Aaron Halfaker, and Loren Terveen. 2018. Value-sensitive algorithm design: Method, case study, and lessons. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1–23.

Digital Library

Cited By

Pérez-Ortiz M(2024)From Prediction to Foresight: The Role of AI in Designing Responsible FuturesJournal of Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable Development10.69828/4d4kja1:1Online publication date: 1-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.69828/4d4kja
Dai JSalakhutdinov RKolter ZHeller KWeller AOliver NScarlett JBerkenkamp F(2024)POSITION: beyond personhoodProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning10.5555/3692070.3692459(9834-9845)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3692070.3692459
Kallina ESingh J(2024)Stakeholder Involvement for Responsible AI Development: A Process FrameworkProceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization10.1145/3689904.3694698(1-14)Online publication date: 29-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689904.3694698
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

The diversity of participatory design research practice at PDC 2002-2012

We investigate the diversity of participatory design research practice, based on a review of ten years of participatory design research published as full research papers at the Participatory Design Conferences (PDC) 2002-2012, and relate this body of ...
Participatory design of public library e-services
PDC '14: Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium papers, and Keynote abstracts - Volume 2

Public libraries are in crisis-mode trying to figure out their future. One area they are struggling with is their role and relationship to the Internet -- their e-services. This study engages public library staff and vendors in the redesign of online ...
Motivations and Barriers for Participation in a Hybrid Wireless Community: The Case of FON

Wireless communities may be an intriguing alternative to 3G networks for offering mobile Internet, but their success depends on their ability to reach a critical mass of active members. The main issue is to understand what motivates and hinders people ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

AIES '23: Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

August 2023

1026 pages

ISBN:9798400702310

DOI:10.1145/3600211

Editors:
Francesca Rossi
IBM
,
Sanmay Das
George Mason University
,
Jenny Davis
Australian National University
,
Kay Firth-Butterfield
Centre for Trustworthy Technology
,
Alex John
London, Carnegie Mellon University

Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

SIGAI: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 29 August 2023

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

NSF (National Science Foundation)

Conference

AIES '23

Sponsor:

SIGAI

AIES '23: AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

August 8 - 10, 2023

QC, Montr\'{e}al, Canada

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 61 of 162 submissions, 38%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

7
Total Citations
View Citations
1,338
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)855
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)85

Reflects downloads up to 09 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Pérez-Ortiz M(2024)From Prediction to Foresight: The Role of AI in Designing Responsible FuturesJournal of Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable Development10.69828/4d4kja1:1Online publication date: 1-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.69828/4d4kja
Dai JSalakhutdinov RKolter ZHeller KWeller AOliver NScarlett JBerkenkamp F(2024)POSITION: beyond personhoodProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning10.5555/3692070.3692459(9834-9845)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3692070.3692459
Kallina ESingh J(2024)Stakeholder Involvement for Responsible AI Development: A Process FrameworkProceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization10.1145/3689904.3694698(1-14)Online publication date: 29-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689904.3694698
Suresh HTseng EYoung MGray MPierson ELevy K(2024)Participation in the age of foundation modelsProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3658992(1609-1621)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3630106.3658992
Cooper NZafiroglu A(2024)From Fitting Participation to Forging Relationships: The Art of Participatory MLProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642775(1-9)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642775
Yildirim NZlotnikov SSayar DKahn JBukowski LAmin SRiman KDavis BMinturn JKing ARicketts DTang LSivaraman VPerer APreum SMcCann JZimmerman J(2024)Sketching AI Concepts with Capabilities and Examples: AI Innovation in the Intensive Care UnitProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3641896(1-18)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3641896
Alvarez JColmenarejo AElobaid AFabbrizzi SFahimi MFerrara AGhodsi SMougan CPapageorgiou IReyero PRusso MScott KState LZhao XRuggieri S(2024)Policy advice and best practices on bias and fairness in AIEthics and Information Technology10.1007/s10676-024-09746-w26:2Online publication date: 29-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10676-024-09746-w

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents